Forum:Deletion Policy
We want to have a wiki with good quality control. To achieve that goal, we really need to set up a good deletion policy. Here is what I propose: we have a single template (needs assistance) that can stay on an article for 1 week. After that the article is deleted. We won't use any delete templates or anything like that. The template will have a link or a detailed explanation of how to move the page to a user sandbox (and delete all categories so that it doesn't show up anywhere) in order to save the article. That's another simple policy that we should have actually: no categories on sandboxed stuff. Anyways, I'm tired so this is probably somewhat incoherent, but I'd like to hammer out some rigid policy for deletion. --Andrew Arnott (talk, ) 01:27, October 8, 2009 (UTC) :Sounds good, though there should still be something for speedy deletion. I definitely support moving unfinished crap into sandboxes -- the nav pages should only show finished stuff. Surgo 01:40, October 8, 2009 (UTC) ::Yeah, we need a stronger delete policy to maintain quality and not fill nave pages up with incomplete work. I think there's a bit of conflating going on between incomplete things (which are stubs, and should have the stub template or something similar tagged on them) and things which are complete but don't hit their balance target or are too weak for the wiki (and need balance assistance and the assistance tag). I personally think very differently of grossly incomplete things than I do balance issue things (I have little patience for the former and will start applying delete tags or whatever to them) and it would be nice to tell them apart even if the deletion policy for them was the same, which I'm not sure it should be. I'm perfectly happy with a 1 week move it or lose it for incomplete items, but I'd prefer 2 weeks on balance assist stuff because we don't treat all balance assist stuff evenly. ::The other problem is that we sorta ignore 'technically complete but still tweaking for balance' things like Jay's Gray Guardian (who failed the SGT first time out but was listed as rogue) and TGCid's tome style sword guy whose name escapes me right now (who was listed as wizard level but wasn't initially, and is still being tweaked up). Both of these really should have had the assistance tag placed on them and been subject to the same deletion policy we're discussing here, but it wasn't done in either case. That sort of lax enforcement makes me want to tread lightly with quickly deleting things that someone properly applied the assistance tag to since we don't apply it to everything that's being tweaked in good faith but is a candidate for it. - TarkisFlux 05:27, October 8, 2009 (UTC) ::: Status: Being tweaked. Should do the trick IMO, it mean it is actually playable, but may be under or overpowered for it balance point. It like releasing a beta, usable but still need to be tweaked, and in theory every classes are being tweaked constantly. --Leziad 07:46, October 8, 2009 (UTC) :::: I don't think "Status: Being Tweaked" is enough. It needs the assistance tag, because Status: Being Tweaked can just languish on there until the end of time and nobody will really notice. If something like what TarkisFlux is describing happens in the future, please put the assistance tag on it. Surgo 12:09, October 8, 2009 (UTC) :::::Surgo, you stuck the assist tag on The_Entheomancer_(3.5e_Prestige_Class) and noted that it needed linking and formatting, but didn't mention it's generally incomplete status. Should that have been tagged as incomplete as well and subject to a move it or lose it countdown? I'm trying to get a feel for how complete something needs to be to not face the threat of deletion. :::::We may also want to add a new "In Progress" or "Help Welcome" template that users can stick on their sandbox work if they want other members to drop by with comments and criticisms. Just to make it explicit that the sandbox isn't private and duplicate some of the group editing that happens when people place their work inappropriately in the completed sections. - TarkisFlux 19:05, October 8, 2009 (UTC) ::::::I didn't realize that the class was supposed to be more than 3 levels long. Sure then, the assistance message should be changed. If you want to make those templates, please go ahead. Surgo 21:00, October 8, 2009 (UTC) :::::::Actually, I was wrong on that prestige class, it's just missing a couple of bits but my cursory scan earlier thought it was much less finished. Sorry bout that, was trying to do too many things at the same time this morning. I'll get those templates out later today when I'm less distracted. - TarkisFlux 21:10, October 8, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::I propose that we adopt this as our deletion and article standards. If there's general agreement, I'll implement the dead templates and cats on that page. - TarkisFlux 02:10, October 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::One other question. Are we going to differentiate between incomplete mechanically from incomplete fluff from incomplete in general? Or just lump it all together and incomplete is incomplete? - TarkisFlux 04:17, October 9, 2009 (UTC) :::::::::For whatever my opinion is worth, I'd suggest differentiating between the two. Something that is mechanically sound but lacks fluff can be picked up as-is and used immediately in a game, while something that possesses wonderfully written fluff but lacks balanced mechanics is for all intents and purposes unusable. -- Dracomortis 23:49, October 9, 2009 (UTC) ::::::::::Actually lacking fluff is not a big deal. What is a big deal is if there are parts of the preload that are empty, or if "<- something here ->" is showing up anywhere in the page. It's not hard to write a damn sentence about your class, and if "<- something here ->" shows up anywhere that's a clear indication that the page is not finished and either needs to be in a sandbox or not on the wiki. Surgo 23:52, October 9, 2009 (UTC) Agreed, just wanted a second opinion. I've updated the Article Reqs page the reflect that, and if anyone wants to spend a minute or five reading it to see if it fits that would be appreciated. - TarkisFlux 00:55, October 10, 2009 (UTC)